Talk:Azati Prime
Azati Prime is named like a planet. this should be its entry as a planet, not a redirect to a system article, Steve (unless i've missed something about its nature) --Captainmike 18:48, 6 Jun 2004 (CEST) It looks like you caught this in the middle of my work; I'd just moved the article here (which was about the system) to Azati Prime system, which is what created the redirect. Azati Prime is now about the system's primary, and Azati Prime (planet) is about the planet. --Steve 19:43, 6 Jun 2004 (CEST) But the 'Prime' descriptor means that, in general Star Trek terminology, that it is the one planet in that system. I don't know if the episode clarified this or disputed it, but in general, 'Azati Prime' would mean that it was the only planet around the star Azati, in the Azati system (if there were more planets, it would be called Azati I or Azati One instead, to make way for Azati II and Azati III, etc etc. Unless there's somethnig in the episodes that contradicts this, i'd assume that's what they meant --Captainmike 19:59, 6 Jun 2004 (CEST) The episode makes several references to multiple planets in the system: the Xindi have colonized two planets in the system, a map shows three of them to be within the detection grid, T'Pol refers to "the inner planets", Enterprise hides behind a planet(oid) on the outskirts the system. --Steve 20:21, 6 Jun 2004 (CEST) :Additionally, 'Prime' does not generally mean that there is exactly one planet in that star system (for example, Cardassia Prime). I think the terminology as described by Steve is correct here - Azati Prime is the star, not one of its planets. -- Cid Highwind 20:33, 6 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::Still I think we should at least recognize the possibility that the term is used in the sense that it is the first planet in a system, other that it could be a location-non-specific name (Azati Prime is in that system, as Azati II would be a planet in another star system completey, or so on). We should avoid making an assumption or speculation that it means one or the other unless they actually said so. ::the Azati Prime (planet) entry works describing the planet, the Azati Prime system entry describes the system it was in as presented in the episode (i.e. the system Azati Prime is in).. but i don't think we can safely assume the star could or should be named Azati Prime also (unless of course, that was specified) it seems like overly speculative. --Captainmike 21:11, 6 Jun 2004 (CEST) :::I remember a scene (probably ) in which Archer and T'Pol are searching their star charts for all red giants in the area, because one of them has to be Azati Prime. The connection between that name and the star (not the system or one of its planets) has definitely been made in this case... Random thought of the moment: Can we be sure that other "Primes" refer to planets and not stars? -- Cid Highwind 21:57, 6 Jun 2004 (CEST) :::: Hmm... we know Cardassia Prime and Tandar Prime are planets... but on the other hand Kolarus Prime is a star. There appears to be no consistent application of terminology here. But then, what else should we expect? This is Star Trek. ;) --Steve 22:06, 6 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::Well, that's a good a reason as any. I think the problem is how later era Trek writers are unfamiliar with Trek history (and a lot of general naming conventions and basic sciences). I'm just pointing out that the name seems incongruous (I'm not as closely familiar with the episodes leading up to "Azati Prime"). Maybe we could add a footnote to the naming irregularity... --Captainmike 23:23, 6 Jun 2004 (CEST)